Armstronglivs wrote:
No, we don't. The debate is settled when you suggested that if El G had doped he might have run 3.23 or 4.40.
Maybe it was rendered ridiculous after buying into the unobserved 3s for 1500m elite runners speculation.
Armstronglivs wrote:
No, we don't. The debate is settled when you suggested that if El G had doped he might have run 3.23 or 4.40.
Maybe it was rendered ridiculous after buying into the unobserved 3s for 1500m elite runners speculation.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
So I agree with experts when they say "caution is required when extrapolating findings from sub-elite to truly elite athletes".
No you dont, because you never acknowledge that elite performances could have have benefited from doping, but find every reason for arguing the reverse. Hence you cannot ever say - albeit it "cautiously" - that El G's record performances were possibly achieved through doping and not just talent and training.
Of course I do. Elite performances could have benefited from doping.
You just cannot show that by looking at recreationally active subjects.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
No, we don't. The debate is settled when you suggested that if El G had doped he might have run 3.23 or 4.40.
Maybe it was rendered ridiculous after buying into the unobserved 3s for 1500m elite runners speculation.
Ridiculous is what you do. You also suggested that fastest doped 1500 performances (Ramzi's 3.29) could be much slower than the fastest clean performances (El G's 3.26). The comedy never ends.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I acknowledge that a benefit is possible. I don't share your faith (again -- your words) in the motivation and rationale for athletes to take banned drugs.
You acknowledge there could be a benefit - baby steps. There might even be a significant benefit? No, that's a bridge too far.
You don't share my "faith" in why athletes dope. So why do they? They just like taking illegal pills and injections that could get them banned from their sport?
I agree with meta-studies that concluded the performance effects of blood doping has been over-estimated.
Athletes dope because they believe in myths supported by studies they don't understand, and athlete anecdotes that are not scientific, and often desperate to try something to run faster when normal legal means are not working.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Ridiculous is what you do. You also suggested that fastest doped 1500 performances (Ramzi's 3.29) could be much slower than the fastest clean performances (El G's 3.26). The comedy never ends.
Prove me wrong.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
No you dont, because you never acknowledge that elite performances could have have benefited from doping, but find every reason for arguing the reverse. Hence you cannot ever say - albeit it "cautiously" - that El G's record performances were possibly achieved through doping and not just talent and training.
Of course I do. Elite performances could have benefited from doping You just cannot show that by looking at recreationally active subjects.
I dont say that. I have other reasons for saying it.
So if "elite performances could have benefited from doping" then it must be possible that El G's records benefited from doping? Or is he not elite enough?
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You acknowledge there could be a benefit - baby steps. There might even be a significant benefit? No, that's a bridge too far.
You don't share my "faith" in why athletes dope. So why do they? They just like taking illegal pills and injections that could get them banned from their sport?
I agree with meta-studies that concluded the performance effects of blood doping has been over-estimated.
Athletes dope because they believe in myths supported by studies they don't understand, and athlete anecdotes that are not scientific, and often desperate to try something to run faster when normal legal means are not working.
Back to your core position - doping athletes are too dumb to realise doping doesn't help them.
rekrunner wrote:
Shopping hour wrote:
They are real experts and they tailored that statement to their findings.
It may be tailored, but it is far removed from their findings.
It remains a speculative hypothesis from experts who studied recreational subjects with cycling exercises.
It is not an observation or finding or conclusion of the study.
You said they shouldn't say that, but they did.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Ridiculous is what you do. You also suggested that fastest doped 1500 performances (Ramzi's 3.29) could be much slower than the fastest clean performances (El G's 3.26). The comedy never ends.
Prove me wrong.
Three words. Performance enhancing drugs.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
No, we don't. The debate is settled when you suggested that if El G had doped he might have run 3.23 or 4.40.
Maybe it was rendered ridiculous after buying into the unobserved 3s for 1500m elite runners speculation.
You're right. The observed drop was closer to ten seconds for Ramzi.
Shopping hour wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
It may be tailored, but it is far removed from their findings.
It remains a speculative hypothesis from experts who studied recreational subjects with cycling exercises.
It is not an observation or finding or conclusion of the study.
You said they shouldn't say that, but they did.
Did I say "should not"? You keep accusing me of that, but those are you words, not mine.
In any case, these are not contradictions -- even experts can say things they should not.
Armstronglivs wrote:
I dont say that. I have other reasons for saying it.
So if "elite performances could have benefited from doping" then it must be possible that El G's records benefited from doping? Or is he not elite enough?
I never deny the possibility, especially when we don't have all the data.
Like you, I also have other reasons.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Maybe it was rendered ridiculous after buying into the unobserved 3s for 1500m elite runners speculation.
Ridiculous is what you do. You also suggested that fastest doped 1500 performances (Ramzi's 3.29) could be much slower than the fastest clean performances (El G's 3.26). The comedy never ends.
Of course that is possible. Terrible logic on your part.
We have clearly seen athletes get caught doping who did not win in all their competitions. That doesn't mean that everyone ahead of them is a doper.
If I doped I wouldn't run 1:41, that doesn't make Rudisha dirty.
Talent and training still matters amongst dopers.
Shopping hour wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Maybe it was rendered ridiculous after buying into the unobserved 3s for 1500m elite runners speculation.
You're right. The observed drop was closer to ten seconds for Ramzi.
It seems the best way to exaggerate the benefit is to make a poor choice for the "clean" reference.
The slower the reference, the bigger the effect.
rekrunner wrote:
Shopping hour wrote:
You said they shouldn't say that, but they did.
Did I say "should not"? You keep accusing me of that, but those are you words, not mine.
In any case, these are not contradictions -- even experts can say things they should not.
So yes, the level of detail required for peer reviewed publications would meet my question criteria by providing the answers. Most specifically, the study would tell me "what they said, exactly", and it would describe the subjects, and the methods. You have much more than "an expert says it works".
When you have a study that also admits their limitations of their findings, they are not just saying "it works", but they are saying something much more limited and qualified: "it worked for us this time under these conditions for these athletes, but it might have worked for other reasons we didn't measure or control, and whatever you do, don't be so stupid as to project these findings onto elite athletes in competition.
Those were your words. But keep trying to slip out of them with your usual contorting.
The study gave you everything you wanted and one thing you didn't.
Shopping hour wrote:
So yes, the level of detail required for peer reviewed publications would meet my question criteria by providing the answers. Most specifically, the study would tell me "what they said, exactly", and it would describe the subjects, and the methods. You have much more than "an expert says it works".
When you have a study that also admits their limitations of their findings, they are not just saying "it works", but they are saying something much more limited and qualified: "it worked for us this time under these conditions for these athletes, but it might have worked for other reasons we didn't measure or control, and whatever you do, don't be so stupid as to project these findings onto elite athletes in competition.
Those were your words. But keep trying to slip out of them with your usual contorting.
The study gave you everything you wanted and one thing you didn't.
So when you kept saying "should not", you were actually wrong every time.
Yes those are my words. I don't feel any need to slip out of these words or contort.
The only thing I would do, if these forums allowed editing, is add an "e.g.".
I know exactly what the experts said, what they observed, which methods they used, which subjects they used, what they predicted, what they measured, what they found, and what limits their findings, in their own words.
And also that they don't think it's stupid to say that it will take three seconds off. Because they are after all experts.
You tried to set up an airtight defense and failed miserably.
rekrunner wrote:
Shopping hour wrote:
You're right. The observed drop was closer to ten seconds for Ramzi.
It seems the best way to exaggerate the benefit is to make a poor choice for the "clean" reference.
The slower the reference, the bigger the effect.
Yes, it works spectacularly for some.
"and whatever you do, don't be so stupid as to project these findings onto elite athletes in competition."
Tell us again how this does not mean "should not".
Shopping hour wrote:
And also that they don't think it's stupid to say that it will take three seconds off. Because they are after all experts.
You tried to set up an airtight defense and failed miserably.
I tried to setup an airtight defense? What does that even mean?
The question was never about what researchers think is stupid, but about whether I agree with experts that say "it works". After all "it's stupid" is my judgement in my words, not theirs.
Let's remind ourselves how this actually played out.
In response to me asking "what did the experts say, exactly", you said "it works".
What I tried to do was to contrast your example of "it works", with an example of a more nuanced and limited conclusion with disclaimer that would be more typical, and one that I could agree to, including its limits and disclaimers.
Studies that include limitations and disclaimers are not immune to making stupid comparisons with elite performance.
I will address the stupidity of "three seconds off" for elite 1500m runners in a next post, because it really is stupid.